call'd as appears from the same Author and Ionathan was one that had formerly enjoy'd that Honour That Ionathan was not there mentioned before Ananias because he was his Superiour in some other Station suppose as Prince of the Sanedrin I inferr from hence that in another Place where Iosephus speaks of the same thing there is no mention at all made of Him but onely of Ananias who was High-priest properly so call'd He sent Ananias the High-priest and Ananus the Captain bound to Rome there to answer before Caesar for what had been done Another Example of this nature we have in the Scripture it self where Zadok the inferiour is mention'd before Abiathar the superiour High-priest And David call'd for Zadok and Abiathar the High-priests Hence some have imagin'd that Zadok even at that time was superiour to Abiathar But the reason why he is first mention'd is Because by being afterwards placed in the room of Abiathar and by being the first High-priest of the Temple and by having his Posterity establish'd in the High-priesthood he was at that time when that Book was written much more famous than Abiathar § 3. To what has been said concerning our Saviour and his Apostles that they acknowleged and communicated with the High-priests of that Age as true High-priests I add that it appears moreover from S. Iohn that Caiaphas was accepted and owned by God himself And one of them named Caiaphas being the High-priest that same year said unto them Ye know nothing at all nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this spake he not of himself but being High = priest that year he prophesied that Iesus should die for that nation c. It appears from these words both that S. Iohn own'd him to be a true High-priest and that as High = priest he receiv'd from God the Power of Prophesying § 4. I shall here for the close of all take notice of an Answer which some of our Adversaries have been pleased to make when urg'd with these Examples of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles Upon this account say they the Nation of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles submitted to the present Possessor tho' put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Secular Autority because the Temple being in the power of the Secular Magistrate they could not perform the more Solemn Acts of their Religion unless they accepted of that High-priest whom the Secular Magistrate had set over the Temple To this I answer That if they had look'd upon the present Possessor to be no true High-priest their being confined to the Temple of Ierusalem could not have been any inducement to 'em to submit themselves to him and to communicate with him in the Sacrifices which he offered If the Secular Magistrate would shut up their Temple they were not oblig'd to have any Sacrifices or any High-priest at all And because they have now no Temple they have therefore no Priests or Sacrifices So if they had not been permitted to offer up their Sacrifices by a High-priest duly qualified they would not have thought themselves obliged to offer any Sacrifices at all any more than they would if he that was their Governour should have kept all lawful Sacrifices from 'em and allow'd 'em only Swine And how can we imagine that if God had not look'd upon those High-priests to be true and real High-priests he would ever have accepted of the Sacrifices which they offer'd or have sent down upon 'em as High-Priests his Spirit of Prophecy If a Swine had been offer'd would God have accepted that Sacrifice because the Civil Governour would permit no other to be offer'd CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome tho put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope WHAT was the Practice of the Iews our Saviour and the Apostles in relation to the High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority that they all along own'd 'em as true High-priests and that God himself approved of 'em we have shewn in the two foregoing Chapters I come now to shew in the third place That the same was the Practice of the Antient Christians throughout all Ages I mean the generality of 'em in every particular Age with respect to their Bishops provided only that they thought 'em upon no other account justly exceptionable For the three first Ages the Emperors were all Heathens and if they deposed any Bishops they did it to destroy Christianity and all Bishops in general It is not therefore to be expected that the three first Ages should afford us any Examples But as they afford us no Examples so neither can our Adversaries produce any one single Example of those Ages that makes for their Cause We can say says our Adversary the Learned Vindicator that even in the Age of St. Cyprian it is very notorious that they then own'd no such Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradition of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withal that those Bishops were set up and maintain'd against the consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this Adherence of theirs was not onely matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty own'd by them as obliging in Conscience and as the Result of Principles Again says the Vindicator Till our Adversaries can disarm us of the Advantage we have from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church signified on occasion of these earliest Instances of Schism in S. Cyprian ' s Age their Author's Collection of later Instances were it never so pertinent to their purpose can do them no
Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us TO make it appear that the general Practice of the Antients throughout all Ages was agreeable to ours I shall first shew That the same was the Practice of the Iews throughout all Ages in reference to their High-priests whom S. Cyprian and others of the Fathers are wont to compare to our Bishops Secondly I shall shew That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowledged and communicated with the High-priests of the Iews as true High-priests tho' put into the places of others unjustly turn'd out by their Governors By which they seem to instruct us what we ought to doe in relation to our Bishops or High-priests And Thirdly I shall shew That the same has been all along the general Practice of the antient Christians § 2. I begin with the Iews But before I proceed to Examples I think it convenient to prevent an Objection that may possibly be made This perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries in answer to the Examples of the Jewish High-priests That the Office of a Bishop amongst us is of a nature much more Spiritual than the Office of those High-priests To that Plea I answer That he that considers the true and full Import of the Question now before us will find it to be no other than this Whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance being Deposed by the Lay-power any other can lawfully succeed in that Office Now as to God's particular Institution and Appointment whatsoever otherwise the Difference may be which 't is needless for us to contend about it is certain that the Jewish High-priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops 'T was by God himself and that too in a very extraordinary manner that the Office of the High-priest was instituted and it was from God alone that he receiv'd his Autority If therefore a Person was accepted of by God as a true and real High-priest tho' put into the room of another Deposed by the Civil Autority then a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop and accordingly ought to be receiv'd tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power To this I add That the Annual Expiation for the Sins of the whole People was to be perform'd by the High-priest This was the chief of the federal Rites of that Religion and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews And this they did ex opere operato so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the Iews to have this Divine Institution perform'd by one appointed to it by God And tho' no provision was made for Cases of Necessity yet Necessity was understood to be a provision for itself And it is certain these Annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days for that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant
Argument proposed by Crakanthorp that he could not find the Life of Eutychius any where but in Surius who he thinks ought not to be trusted I onely observe that as it is generally receiv'd as genuine by the Learned so it carries with it as clear and manifest Characters of Genuineness as any Life extant Concerning the Author of it I have this to add That he was the same with that Eustratius whom Photius entitles Presbyter of the Great Church of Constantinople and whose Treatise concerning the state of the Dead he mentions which Treatise is now extant published by L. Allatius That he was the same I gather from hence that Eustratius the Presbyter who wrote of the State of the Dead not onely discovers as the Worthy and Learned Dr. Cave has observed that he lived in the time of the Patriarch Eutychius but expresses likewise a singular Affection and Veneration for him The geat Eutychius Archbishop of Constantinople that Holy and by me ever-to-be honour'd Person CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius tho' deposed by the Lay-power and tho' he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church I Have mention'd in the foregoing Chapter that Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by the Emperour Iustin the Younger It was done in the fifth Year of Iustin's Reign in the Year of Christ 570. And that it was done barely by the Emperour's Autority without any Synod may easily be gather'd from the account which Evagrius gives of it Iustin says he turn'd Anastasius out of the See of Antioch objecting against him that he had profusely squander'd away the sacred Money upon things not necessary and that he had likewise spoken reproachfully of him that being ask'd why he was so profuse of the sacred Money he answer'd down-right That therefore he had done it that it might not be took away by Justin that common Plague Now it was said that therefore Justin had a spite against Anastasius because when he demanded a summ of Money of him when promoted to the Bishoprick he refused to give it him There were besides the above-mention'd some other things objected against him by some that were willing as we may suppose to gratifie the Emperour in his design The same may be gather'd from the account we have in Theophanes That he was thrust out of his See through the Emperor Justin 's displeasure because he had spoken sharply against John Patriarch of Constantinople who had ordain'd John Patriarch of Alexandria and likewise against John of Alexandria himself Agreeably to this Iohannes Diaconus tells us that he was deposed Potestatibus And Pope Gregory the Great intimates the same thing when he says he was made Patriarch by God but deposed voluntate hominum Tho' such were his Deprivation and tho' as will by and by appear he never gave up his Right and tho' he was a great and admired Bishop of that Age so highly esteem'd and rever'd by all the Bishops of the Catholick Church as that when the Emperor Iustinian had sent about to all Bishops and requir'd 'em to subscribe to his new-fangled Heresie they all unanimously replied That they would follow the Example of Anastasius of Antioch Tho I say he was so great and admired a Person yet 1. I observe that there is not the least mention in any Author of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by his Deprivation 2. It is certain that Gregory Abbot of Mount Sinai who succeeded him continued Patriarch of Antioch no less than 23 or 24 Years and that too tho' Anastasius was all that while living and was never deprived but died possess'd of the See And after his Death Anastasius was agen restor'd Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople assigns him 24 Years Evagrius 23. 3. It appears from Evagrius that Gregory who accepted of his See was a Person of extraordinary Worth And from thence it appears That the greatest and the worthiest Men did not think it unlawfull or a disparagement to accept of the See of a Bishop deposed by the Lay-power 4. It appears likewise from Evagrius That he was not onely receiv'd as Bishop of Antioch but was highly beloved and honour'd Let us hear what Evagrius says After Anastasius says he Gregory was preferr'd to the Episcopal Throne whose glory according to the Poet is spread far and near He was for Vnderstanding and Vertue and all Accomplishments a very extraordinary Person and in any thing he undertook of an unconquerable Resolution fearless and undaunted and never yielding in any ill or unreasonable thing to the Supreme Powers So liberal and magnificent he was that as often as he came abroad a vast number of Persons besides his own proper Attendants were wont to wait on him And as soon as any perceiv'd him or heard that he was a coming they immediately flock'd in to attend him And so highly was he honour'd that the Honour which is usually paid to the Emperors themselves was less than that which was paid to him Evagrius adds much more in his praise and tells us That he was admired not onely by the Christian but likewise by the Persian Emperors c. He tells us likewise how by his great Autority he appeas'd a whole Army that mutinied against their Commanders In his Speech to that Army I am says he by the Grace of God a Bishop and have the power of binding and loosing both in Heaven and in Earth Evagrius adds That he appeased God by Prayers and Supplications This Action of the Patriarch Gregory is recorded likewise by another Historian of that Age Theophylactus Simocattes Philippicus says he was receiv'd by the Army Gregory the then Archbishop of Antioch having reconciled it to him 5. To this Patriarch our Historian Evagrius was himself Assessor or Chancellor Tho' it appears by that great Character which he gives the former Patriarch Anastasius that he highly honour'd and esteem'd him yet he readily acknowleges the present Possessor and acts as Assessor or Chancellor under him as the true Patriarch There was no one doubted of the lawfulness of it 6. He was likewise acknowleg'd by S. Symeon Stylites the latter of that name as appears from Evagrius who speaks of a Prophecy which
The Author of the Synodicon Martin the most holy Pope of Rome was banish'd to Cherso Agatho the most blessed Pope of Rome who was advanc'd to Martin 's Throne gather'd a holy Synod c. In the last place I add That S. Martin himself was so far from abhorring the Communion of his Successor Eugenius that he owns him as a true Pope and prays for him May God says that good Man in his last Epistle which he wrote from Cherso who wills that all Men should be saved and come to the knowlege of the Truth establish the hearts of the People of Rome in the Orthodox Faith through the Intercessions of S. Peter and confirm 'em against all Hereticks and Adversaries of the Church and make 'em immovable especially the Pastor who I hear presides now over ' em It appears from what has been observ'd concerning P. Gregory his looking upon Anastasius to be still the rightfull Patriarch of Antioch his giving him the Title of Patriarch and his sending him his Synodical Letters That Anastasius after his Expulsion had never given up his Right or resign'd And yet it appears that Anastasius the great Anastasius he to whom all the Bishops of the East paid so great a Deference never separated from the Communion of the Church but continued to communicate peacebly with it This appears from an Epistle of P. Gregory to Sebastian Bishop of Risinum in which the Pope says That he had written a Petition to the Emperor Mauricius to desire that Anastasius if he might not be restored to his See yet at least might be permitted to come to Rome and officiate there with him as a Bishop The same he says in an Epistle to Anastasius himself This Paragraph should have been placed at the End of the Eleventh Chapter at Page 127. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. THE Emperor Iustinian Sirnam'd Rhinotmetus having commanded the General of his Army to slaughter the People of Constantinople and to begin with the Patriarch Callinicus the Patriarch was advised by Leontius and other great Men to endeavour to have the Emperor deposed and to excite the people against him by crying out This is the day which the Lord hath made He accordingly did so and the people accordingly took the Emperor and cut off his Nose and banish'd him to Cherso and made Leontius Emperor After three Years Leontius was deposed by Apsimarus and he after Seven Years was deposed by the ejected Emperor Iustinian Iustinian being restored this happen'd in the Year 703. commanded Leontius and Apsimarus to be put to death and the Patriarch Callinicus he deprived of his Sight and banish'd him to Rome and made one Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris who had foretold of his being to be restor'd Patriarch in his stead So Theophanes Glycas thus Justinian put Apsimarus together with Leontius to Death and Callinicus the Patriarch because he had opposed him in some Designs of his against the Church he deprived of his Sight and banish'd him to Rome and promoted Cyrus in the Greek Cyriacus a Recluse of Amastris in his stead because he had prophesied to him of his Restauration That Callinicus was deposed and banish'd without any Synod may be easily gather'd from the thing it self For doubtless the enraged and revengeful Emperor dealt with him as he did with the rest and did what he did in a Fury In a word adds Glycas just after the words produced he murder'd all like so many Sheep for he was all in a fury That he was deposed and banish'd by the Emperor is asserted likewise by Zonaras Cedrenus Nicephorus the Patriarch Ioel and Constantinus Manasses who tells us that before he was deprived of his Sight and banish'd he was exposed to the Boys as a laughing-stock to be abused by them Callinicus being thus deposed and banished the new Patriarch Cyrus was readily own'd as a true Patriarch by all Concerning any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by Callinicus's Lay-Deprivation not a single word in any Author This Instance the Author of the Baroccian Treatise takes notice of who observes not only that Cyrus was receiv'd by the Church but likewise that Callinicus never separated from the Church's and Cyrus's Communion by which he means That there was not any Schism headed by Callinicus as an Anti-patriarch And the silence of all Authors in general does sufficiently confirm what he says The Emperor Justinian says he Sir-nam'd Rhinotmetus coming the second time to the Throne deposed and banish'd unjustly the most holy Patriarch Callinicus and placed Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris in the See Now observe That Callinicus did not separate himself from the Church and from Cyrus upon the account of his unjust Deprivation and that Cyrus together with those he had ordain'd were receiv'd by the Church 'T is a vain thing for our Adversaries to allege that therefore probably Callinicus did not think fit to insist upon his Right because by being guilty of Treason he had forfeited his Life For whether Callinicus did insist upon his Right or not the Church did not care As soon as he was banish'd and Cyrus was constituted in his place they immediately submitted to the present Possessor Who can ever believe that the Church of Constantinople sent to Rome to know what the old Patriarch's Pleasure was Six years the Patriarch Cyrus enjoy'd the Dignity After that time there being another Revolution in the State Iustinian being kill'd and Philippicus advanced to the Imperial Throne he was deposed by the new Emperor What the reason was is not said but that we may easily guess at The Emperor Philippicus as soon as he came to the Throne call'd an Heretical Synod and condemn'd the Sixth General Council and preferr'd one Iohn a Monothelite to the Patriarchal Chair It is therefore likely that the Patriarch Cyrus was therefore deposed because he refused to comply with the Emperor in that Design The Patriarch Nicephorus intimates that Cyrus was turn'd out and Iohn made Patriarch before the meeting of that Synod § 2. After Iohn succeeded Germanus who was forc'd by the Emperor Leo Isaurus to resign his Bishoprick because he refused to condemn the Worship of Images After this time the Church of Constantinople were for many years Iconoclasts to the Church of Rome Hereticks to us Orthodox Anastasius succeeded Germanus and after his death Constantine was advanced to the Patriarchal Throne by the Emperor Constantius Copronymus The Patriarch Constantine after Twelve Years Government viz. in the Year 766. was deposed by the same Emperor The occasion and the manner is thus described by Theophanes On the Thirtieth day of August says he the Fourth Indiction
Santabarenus's desiring Photius to depose him it is very manifest that he accounted him his Patriarch and that Photius lookt upon himself as such may be gather'd from his Answer 4. It 's asserted by all the three Authors last quoted That the Emperor was extremely enraged at that disappointment because he could not get a sufficient Accusation against the Patriarch If he had resign'd what should make the Emperor so malicious against him The Accusations for which he had been deposed were thought insufficient the Emperor therefore endeavour'd to have other and greater things made out against him that he might not be accused of Injustice in deposing him 5. It appears from the Emperor 's own express words in his Speech which he made to Stylianus and other Bishops c. after he had deposed Photius that Photius did not resign but was properly deposed The Speech is recorded in the Appendix to the Greek Acts of the VIII Council The Author of that Appendix having first asserted in his own words That the Emperor expell'd Photius for his Crimes adds That having called Stylianus and many others whom Photius had persecuted together he spoke these words to 'em Our Imperial Majesty which proceeds from God having wellweighed and considered the matter has driven that wicked Man from his Throne and delivered you from your Persecution c. I take no notice of what the Vindicator says concerning the new Patriarch Stephen that since he was brought up and instructed by Photius it is not likely that he would have accepted of the See if Photius had not resign'd There is no strength in that Ambition or obedience to the Emperor his Brother might be a sufficient Motive By what I but now observ'd concerning Santabarenus it should seem that he did not at the time of that Tryal own the Patriarch Stephen But tho' He as Photius's Creature and very great Friend did not at that time own him yet certain it is that the Church in general did Hence in the Synodicon or Tomus Vnionis which was published in the Year 920. May the Memory of Ignatius Photius Stephanus Antonius Nicholaus the most holy Patriarchs be everlasting Whatsoever has been either written or spoken against the most holy Patriarchs Germanus Nicephorus and Methodius Ignatius Photius Stephanus Antoninus be Anathema 'T is true that there was some Schism on his Account may be gather'd from this very thing because his Name is in that Tome But then it does not appear that that Schism was occasioned by his being put into Photius's place We know that he had been ordain'd Deacon by Photius we likewise know that there were some in his time that refused to own any that had been ordain'd by Photius and this I take to be the true Reason why Stephen is mentioned in the Tome the rather because even his Successor Antonius whose Circumstances were not the same is likewise mentioned They were both I suppose disowned by such as did not allow of Photius's Ordinations We must not forget that Leo Grammaticus has told us that the Patriarch Stephen was consecrated Patriarch by the chief Metropolitan of the District and the rest of the Bishops i.e. by a great many I shall conclude this Chapter or rather Dissertation concerning Photius with the Testimony of Aretas Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia from which it may appear not only that he was accounted an excellent Man but that he was likewise violently deposed Aretas in an Oration which he made at the Sepulcher of Euthymius Patriarch of Constantinople who was deposed Twenty five Years after Photius's last Deprivation and was used so barbarously as that he died a little after O the Power says he of the High-priests of God That rejoicest with those that have suffered Injuries for the sake of Vertue that with Abel art obnoxious to Envy That as Jacob heretofore art constantly tormented by Competitors That art murder'd as James was for the sake of the Jews That with the holy Athanasius art thrust out of thy Throne With Paul Patriarch of Constantinople art adorned with the Schackles of Banishment and as this holy Patriarch by the Bonds of a Confessor That together with Nicephorus and PHOTIUS those most famous â—en art graced with Expulsions and Deaths CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Berengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus yet no Division in the Church on their account § 3 4. The Patriarchs of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk yet no Division in the Church As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here as in the Greek Church The Necessity the same AFter the Death of the Patriarch Stephen Antonius Cauleas succeeded in the See of Constantinople and after his Death Nicolaus Mysticus or the Secretary of State was made Patriarch In his time the Emperor Leo contrary to the Canons of the Church married a fourth Wife for which he excommunicated him and because he refused to take off the Excommunication was deposed by him The Vindicator would needs perswade us that he was not deposed by the Emperor but by a Synod The Author he quotes for it is Eutychius or Said Ebn Batrick who is so far from affirming and likewise from intimating what the Vindicator contends for that he plainly intimates the contrary But whatever Authors the Vindicator thinks fit to make use of we know the Autority of Eutychius to be so contemptible and we know him to be so erroneous particularly in what he says relating to the Emperor Leo and the Patriarch Nicolaus That tho he makes directly against the Vindicator yet we scorn to produce him as a Witness Neither indeed have we need That the Patriarch Nicolaus was deposed by the Emperor is positively asserted by the Emperor's Son Constantinus Porphyrogennetus He says his Father deposed him as a Lyer and a perjur'd Man because he had several times promised and sworn that he would absolve him and yet refused to do it We have other very good and authentick Writers that give us so particular an account of the whole matter that there 's nothing can be more manifest than that there was not any Synod concern'd The Historian Leo Grammaticus after a Relation given us of the Emperor's being excommunicated adds That Samonas a very ill Man being made the Gentleman of the Bed-chamber the Emperor and He laid their Heads together to depose the Patriarch and sending for him on the first of February desired him to restore 'em to the Church Which when he refus'd to do they
then 't is certain that That Bishop if he makes a Separation is himself guilty of a Schism We will now proceed to consider in short the Duty of an ejected Bishop upon this Supposition That there are some of our late Bishops that still lay Claim to the Obedience of their People which as has been observ'd in the Beginning of this Treatise does not as yet sufficiently appear And for their sakes I speak it may it never appear We will suppose if they please that the Church ought not to submit to the present Possessor unless the ejected Bishop gives his Consent Let that be supposed Yet if the Church to avoid a Persecution has actually done it what then ought a good Bishop to do Let us consider a little what the consequences of a Schism may be To be engaged in a Schism is according to S. Cyprian and our Adversaries themselves to be out of the Church of Christ and to be in a State of Damnation And how can a good Bishop one that ought to lay down even his Life for his Flock see his People in a State of Damnation when by onely his communicating with his Successor they may be redeem'd This deserves to be seriously consider'd 'T is the Advice of S. Clement Bishop of Rome to some turbulent Persons of Corinth who disturbed the Presbyters of the Church that they should if they could not agree rather leave that place than disturb the Presbyters and hinder 'em in the Discharge of their Duty This place of S. Clement I formerly understood as if he had given that advice to the Presbyters themselves that they should rather withdraw than be the occasion of Schisms and Divisions and so easie it is to mistake it that it 's acknowleged by even some of my Adversaries that I rightly understood it But upon perusing S. Clement's Epistle a second time I agree with the learned Vindicator that this is his Meaning Vtinam mihi sic semper disputare contingat ut ad meliora proficiens deseram quod maâ—â— tenebam That I heartily say with S. Ierom. I could heartily wish that all were of the same Disposition Caeterum scimus quosdam I use S. Cyprian's words quod semel imbiberunt nolle deponere nec propositum suum facile mutare That the Clergy ought not to be unjustly disturbed is a thing we all agree in It is likewise certain that if they have Injury done 'em they ought to have Amends made ' em But the Question now is Whether if the State has unjustly deposed 'em and is resolv'd not to restore 'em and the Church for Peace-sake has thought fit to submit they that are injured ought not so to acquiesce as that all People may be united and the much greater Part retriev'd from the Spiritual Danger to which they are obnoxious I have produced in my Preface to the Baroccian Treatise some Examples to shew how tender good Bishops have always been of their Flock and the Church's Peace They deserve to be here also mention'd When S. Gregory Nazianzen was Patriarch of Constantinople and great Disturbances were rais'd in the Church on his account he freely surrender'd up his Right and in the General Council of Constantinople thus address'd himself to the Bishops 'T is a base and unworthy thing my Collegues and Co-pastors of the Flock of Christ for you who teach others Peace to stir up among your selves an intestine War For how shall you be able to reduce others to Concord who differ and disagree among your selves By the Trinity it self I beseech you to concert your Affairs peaceably and as becomes you And if on my account there be any Dissentions I am not better than the Prophet Jonas Throw me into the Sea and so shall you cease to be toss'd by the tempest of Tumults Whatsoever you shall think fit tho' I am not guilty of any thing I will willingly endure it if by that means there may be Concord preserv'd Depose me from my Throne Cast me out of the City This onely I desire that to speak in the words of Zacharias you would love Truth and Peace When Nectarius was ordain'd and fate as his Successor he address'd himself to him and desired him to take care against Hereticks As for my own private Troubles says he I do not so much as reckon 'em among Evils I regard onely the Afflictions of the Church When the African Church was broken in pieces by the Schism of the Donatist's all the Catholick Bishops of that Church to the number of near 300 made the Donatists this Offer That if they pleas'd all the Bishops of both Parties should resign their Bishopricks and new ones whom both Parties should acknowlege should be chosen in their places This Offer they publickly make in the first Conference of Carthage in their Epistle to Marcellinus the Emperor's Vice-gerent For why say they I should we doubt to offer up in our Redeemer the Sacrifice of such a Humility Did he descend into a Human Body from Heaven that we might be Members of him and shall we scruple to descend from our Thrones to preserve his Body from being torn in pieces by a cruel Division 'T is sufficient for us that we are faithfull and obedient Christians Let us therefore so continue We are ordain'd Bishops for the sake of the People of Christ That therefore which conduces to the peace of Christ's Church let us do according to the Duty of Bishops If we are profitable Servants how can we preferr our Temporal Honours to the Eternal Rewards of our Lord. The Episcopal Dignity will be more advantageous to us if by being resign'd it may gather together the Flock of Christ than if it disperses it by being retain'd For with what face shall we hope for those Honours which are promis'd by Christ in the World to come if our pretending to our Honours here in this World does hinder the Vnity of the Church Who can believe that these great Men if they had been unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority would therefore have broken the Peace of the Church and separated from the Communion of their Successors 'T is a Saying of S. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria That Schism is more to be avoided than Idolatry it self because by avoiding Idolatry we consult onely our owâ— private Good but by avoiding Schism we consult the Good of all the whole Church This he writes to Novatian who had set up himself against Cornelius as Bishop of Rome And he tells him That if he was chosen against his Will as he had pretended he ought to shew it by resigning voluntarily That he ought to endure any thing that the Church of God might not be divided This Autority our Adversaries are pleas'd to urge for themselves But they do not consider how different their Case is from that of Cornelius They do not consider that Cornelius was never deposed was still in Possession still own'd by all the Churches of the World Novatian
pace maximi â—iri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but onely a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Use he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Use he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly * An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles History c. in the Preface * S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. Ergo ille evangelii vindex ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum (a) Collat. Carthag 1. c. 16. (b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. (c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius as Sozomen says l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod not was not Orthodox but Arian (a) Grâ—g Turon Hist. l. 10. c. 31. (b) Can. 4. (c) Can. 6.